Today, Mayes announced yet another fraud case in which a couple has been charged with 60 counts of fraud, having put in applications for 50 students, 43 of whom do not actually exist. The couple– Johnny Lee Bowers and Ashley Meredith Hewitt– apparently did not even live in Arizona at the time. They grabbed around $100K, which they used for “personal living expenses,” so this was like their job, what they did for a living.
Here’s the deal: The voucher scheme in Arizona is busting the budget – and it is rife with fraud.
As TN lawmakers consider vouchers (again), they should look at the results in Arizona – lots of fraud, little ROI in terms of student outcomes.
Vouchers lost big on Election Day, but voucher supporters keep insisting they should get their way
Even though voucher supporters thought they could win by putting vouchers to a vote in three states (Kentucky, Colorado, and Nebraska), and even though they were soundly defeated in all three cases, and even though vouchers have never won when put to a vote of the people, voucher supporters are still trying.
They know best, after all. And even though the votes weren’t close, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do vouchers anyway.
So perhaps the more complete version of the argument is this– nobody should be able to make me do things I don’t want to do, but I should be able to make them do things they don’t want to do. And if I want their money to help me do the things I want to do, they should be made to give it to me. Or maybe it’s “if I’m going to be forced to so something I don’t want to do, then other people should be forced to do something I do want to do.” Or maybe just “Other people shouldn’t be able to make rules that bind me.”
And then, Greene gets to the heart of the reality of vouchers:
Private schools are a way for those with might and money to escape the democratically-operated system. Vouchers are a way to funnel public tax dollars into that system while pretending that we’ll open great private school doors to one and all. But that pretense is just that– a pretense. Voucher laws deliberately protect the ability of private schools to discriminate while also protecting their right to avoid any accountability to the taxpayers.
In 2018, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected school vouchers. On the ballot that year was a measure that would have allowed all parents — even the wealthiest ones — to receive taxpayer money to send their kids to private, typically religious schools.
Arizonans voted no, and it wasn’t close. Even in a right-leaning state, with powerful Republican leaders supporting the initiative, the vote against it was 65% to 35%.
This year, voters in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kentucky rejected vouchers. In Kentucky, the margin was 2-1 against vouchers – and all 120 counties in Kentucky opposed a ballot initiative that would have allowed vouchers.
While the results of last week’s election indicate a closely divided nation on many issues, support for public schools is a consistent winner. And, when asked – in blue states and red states and in rural and urban areas – voters reject school vouchers.
Within hours of the recent election’s conclusion in Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee’s top legislative allies filed their top priority legislation for 2025: School Vouchers.
This despite vouchers being overwhelmingly rejected by voters in states like Kentucky, Colorado, and Nebraska.
Yes, while Kentucky voted about 2-1 for Donald Trump, they also voted 2-1 AGAINST a ballot initiative that would have allowed public funds to be spent on private schools by way of vouchers.
Vouchers were rejected in all 120 of Kentucky’s counties.
And still, Gov. Lee and his associates continue to push for a universal voucher scheme in our state.
“Once again, Tennessee Republicans are pushing an expansion of their failed private school voucher scheme. This isn’t about improving education; it’s about diverting public dollars away from underfunded public schools to private institutions that are unaccountable to taxpayers and don’t serve every student. Vouchers are a scam — they aren’t working to improve student outcomes here in Tennessee, nor have they succeeded at this scale anywhere else in the country.”
Yes, vouchers themselves are budget-busters. But, this proposed amendment also includes a key provision that could create headaches for school districts, principals, and teachers.
THAT PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN
Those are the words causing great concern.
Because, what do they mean? Do words even mean anything?
Here are some of the ways this language might be interpreted:
Wouldn’t this amendment also allow parents to intrude into every classroom? If I have a constitutional right to direct my child’s education, does that not mean that I can tell my child’s science teacher to stop teaching evolution? Or start teaching evolution? Can I demand a different approach to teaching American history? How about prepositions? And how will a classroom teacher even function if every child in the classroom comes with a parent who has a constitutional right to direct their education?
A representative of the state’s Parent Teacher Association (PTA) says the law, if adopted, would amount to chaos.
And it wouldn’t just be limited to chaos in public schools. All parents would have the guaranteed, constitutionally-protected right to “direct” their child’s education – no matter the school setting.
It seems likely that if the law passed, one or several court cases would have to be heard to determine the exact meaning of “directing a child’s learning.”
If I have a right to choose a private school paid for by tax dollars but the private school doesn’t accept my kid, then what? Doesn’t the law say the “choice” is mine – and I’m “directing” the state to use its dollars to educate my child at the school I choose? Which means if the school doesn’t “choose” my kid, they are breaking the law? Infringing on my rights?
I’m not sure this law will pass, but if it does, Colorado will be in for – chaos.
A Kentucky student highlights problems created by school voucher schemes
As Kentucky voters consider a an amendment to the state’s Constitution that would allow the use of public funds to support private K-12 schools, one private school student is speaking out on why that’s a very bad idea.
One of the scariest things about Amendment 2 is that it basically serves as a blank check for vouchers to non-public schools with no clear place for the funding to come from other than public schools.
Tennessee policymakers should remember, too, that just as in Kentucky, the school voucher scheme is likely to funnel tax dollars from rural districts and send them to urban and suburban private schools.
Of course, that won’t stop Gov. Lee from trying again to pass a universal school voucher bill.
Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska all have voucher votes on the ballot.
Peter Greene reminds us:
These are three different approaches to the question of taxpayer-funded school vouchers, but they share the unusual feature of putting voucher programs to a public vote. All school voucher programs in the U. S. were passed into law by legislatures, sometimes over strong objections of the taxpayers. No taxpayer-funded school voucher program has ever survived a public vote.
It’s not clear the drafters understood the full implications of the proposed change.
The wording essentially makes school choice the right of every child in the state. It also explicitly gives parents the right to “direct their child’s education.”
As Peter Greene notes, this presents some interesting challenges:
Wouldn’t this language amount to a state takeover of all charter and private schools?
And that’s not all. Wouldn’t this amendment also allow parents to intrude into every classroom? If I have a constitutional right to direct my child’s education, does that not mean that I can tell my child’s science teacher to stop teaching evolution? Or start teaching evolution? Can I demand a different approach to teaching American history? How about prepositions? And how will a classroom teacher even function if every child in the classroom comes with a parent who has a constitutional right to direct their education?
It’s not clear there’s momentum for the proposed changes to pass. But, if they did, Colorado schools – both public and private – could be in for some unpleasant surprises.
No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.
Yep. That’s it.
The surprise is not that the majority agreed with the plain language. Rather, it’s surprising that these word could be read in such a way as to allow state money to flow to anything other than public schools in South Carolina.
In a report on Florida’s experiment with full-on school privatization by way of charter schools and vouchers, Peter Greene notes that the endgame for those supporting “school choice” is getting the government completely out of the “education business.” While that may sound great in terms of “free market,” Greene highlights some pretty important implications:
Privatization is not just about privatizing the folks who get to provide education (or education-flavored products). It is about privatizing the responsibility for getting children an education.
Getting government out of education means ending the promise that every child in this country is entitled to a decent education. Regardless of zip code. Regardless of their parents’ ability to support them. Regardless of whatever challenges they bring to the process.
End that promise. Replace it with a free(ish) market. End the community responsibility for educating future citizens. Put the whole weight of that on their parents. End the oversight and accountability to the elected representatives of the taxpayers. Replace it with a “Well, the parents will sort that out. And if they don’t, that’s their own fault and their own problem.”
This sounds a lot like what Gov. Bill Lee and his legislative allies are attempting in Tennessee.
